JUDGMENT : 1. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as there is no dispute about the liability of respondent No. 4 – Insurance Company, the requirement of service on respondent No.2 owner may be dispensed with. 2. In view of the submissions made, the application is allowed. The requirement of service on respondent No.2 owner is dispensed with. 3. Heard on application filed by the appellant seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 4. For the reasons mentioned in the application supported by the affidavit, the same is allowed. The delay of 29 days in filing the appeal is condoned. At the request of learned counsel for the parties the matter has been finally heard. 5. This appeal for enhancement of compensation is directed against judgment and award dated 25.02.2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3), Udaipur Head Quarter Salumber (‘the Tribunal’), whereby, the Tribunal has awarded a sum of Rs. 14,96,872/- as compensation to the appellant-claimant. 6. The application for compensation was filed by the claimant for death of one Nathu Singh, her husband, who suffered fatal injuries in the accident, which occurred from Truck Turbo No. RJ27-GA-3050. It was claimed that the deceased was employed with Ajmer Vidhyut Vitaran Nigam Limited, Salumber as Helper-II and was getting a salary of Rs. 15,457/- per month. Based on the said submission, the compensation was claimed. 7. The Tribunal after evidence was led by the parties accepted the income of the deceased at Rs. 15,457/- and after deducting 50% towards personal expenses and applying multiplier of 16 awarded a compensation of Rs. 14,83,872/- and a further sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards funeral expenses, Rs. 1,000/- towards conveyance and Rs. 10,0000/- towards loss of consortium and in all a sum of Rs. 14,96,872/- was awarded. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal committed error in taking the personal expenses of the deceased at 50% and in not awarding any amount towards future prospects though the deceased was in permanent employment. It was further submitted that the issue now stand covered by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : AIR 2017 SC 5157 and, therefore, the compensation be awarded in terms of said judgment. 9. It was further submitted that the issue now stand covered by judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Insurance Company Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi & Ors. : AIR 2017 SC 5157 and, therefore, the compensation be awarded in terms of said judgment. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent Insurance Company supported the award impugned and submitted that at the time when the award was passed, the same was passed in terms of the law as it then existed and, therefore, the award does not call for any interference. 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. The facts are not in dispute wherein the age of the deceased was 40 years and his income as per Exhibit-22 was Rs. 15,457/- per month. The Tribunal while assessing the amount of compensation towards loss of income has apparently wrongly deducted 50% towards personal expenses and has failed to award any amount towards future prospects. However, the multiplier applied is excessive in view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation : (2009) 6 SCC 121 . The amount towards loss of consortium and other conventional expenses are also on the lower side. 12. In view of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pranay Sethi (supra), the quantum of compensation is calculated as under :- 15457 x 12 x 15 = 27,82,260 - 9,27,420 (1/3rd towards personal expenses) = 18,54,840 + 9,27,420 (50% future prospects) = 27,82,260/-. 13. Towards loss of consortium and conventional expenses the claimant would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 70,000/- and in all would be entitled to a sum of Rs. 28,52,260/-. On the enhanced amount of compensation the claimant would be entitled to interest @ 5% per annum from the date of application i.e. 25.09.2008 to the date of actual payment. The amount of interest has been reduced on account of the fact that though the appeal was filed on 29.06.2011, the same remained under defects for over six years and is being taken up for the first time after condonation of delay, after notices on the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were ordered to be issued on 24.08.2017. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. 14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The appellant would be entitled to a further sum of Rs. 13,55,388/- alongwith interest @ 5% per annum on the said amount from the date of application i.e. 25.09.2008 till the date of actual payment. The amount be paid by the respondent No. 4 – Insurance Company within a period of six weeks in the saving bank account of the appellant. No order as to costs.